Phase Composition of Oxide Scales during Reheating in Hot Rolling of Low Carbon Steel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Low carbon steel was oxidized over the temperature range 1000‐1250°C in O2‐CO2‐H2O‐N2, O2‐H2O‐N2, and O2‐CO2‐N2 gas mixtures. Oxidation times were 12‐120 min. and the scales were 50‐2000 μm thick. The variations of these parameters were chosen to elucidate the phase composition of oxide scales under conditions similar to those of reheating furnaces in hot strip mills, using either thin slab casting or conventional casting and rolling technology. Two types of scales have been observed which are influenced by the furnace atmosphere, oxidation time, and temperature. The first type is a crystalline scale with an irregular outer surface, composed mostly of wustite (FeO), and a negligible amount of magnetite (Fe3O4). The second type is the classical three‐layer scale, composed of wustite (FeO), magnetite (Fe3O4), and hematite (Fe2O3). In general, the experiments showed that an increase in oxidation time decreased the percentage of wustite while the percentages of magnetite and hematite increased. A rise in oxygen concentration in the gas mixture increased the percentages of magnetite and hematite, confirming earlier experimental findings. In water vapour‐free atmospheres O2‐CO2‐N2, the oxide scales had a low percentage of wustite, and high percentage of magnetite and hematite. Carbon dioxide showed a small influence at 1100°C, and a negligible one at 1250°C.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".